With Ruslik about to get the fourth of the seven FA'd, I think the best thing to do right now is to go balls out on Europa, since that's the closest to completion; all it needs are a few citations. Triton and Ganymede are eons away from acceptance. Since planetary habitability is your forte, would you care to join me on a minor crusade? Serendipodous 16:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey RJ. A year on, Barnard's Star is heading to the main page on October 18. Do you have the time to do the math on Sol's magnitude from there, as done at Tau Ceti? T Ceti and your IK Pegasi make me wonder if any important info was missed with Barnard's Star; if you can think of any useful additions, let me know. Also, another editor introduced a less massive formula format; you'd know better what works best. Cheers, Marskell 20:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the formula, see: User:RJHall/temp#Barbard.27s_Star. For an FA star, I would have liked to have seen all of the data in the infobox be cited, as was done for IK Peg. SIMBAD doesn't carry some of the information in the Details section, for example. The WP:MATH page suggests either form for the fomula (if it is sufficient), so I think that is fine. But an alternative is to bracket the formula in small matrix format, thus:
or
Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I believe so. Stars between 2.6 and 3.5 are third magnitude. — RJH (talk)
"For an FA star, I would have liked to have seen all of the data in the infobox be cited, as was done for IK Peg." You did vote for it :). But you're right. Interesting how standards continue to slowly creep up. I'm going to try to get to every stat before it appears. Marskell 19:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and it was the FA process for IK Peg that kicked it off in my head. Sorry. I can help with that if you need it—I've had some practice. — RJH (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a little bit terrible because I'm going back through the infobox now and tweaking numbers while asking myself where I got them from (Simbad, ARICNS, or there to begin with (probably from you!) and I was too lazy too check). I'll err in favour of Simbad per your comments. But do you mind if I trouble you with questions as I go?
Here is Simbad. Is it's "B magn" = Absolute magnitude? Marskell 20:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
B magnitude is the blue light magnitude in the UBV system. I normally use V for the apparent magnitude and then compute Mv from the parallax. — RJH (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK then, I've said this to you before: I have no idea how to read Simbad to find the numbers you do. On it's search, where is the absolute magnitude listed? Where the colour index? I only used ARICNS because I didn't seem to see what I need on a Simbad search—and it's leaving me in a muddle now.
Also, do our parameters allow for more than one parallax measurement? I can't even insert a ref to parallax without an error generated. Marskell 21:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed | parallax_footnote=<ref name="simbad" /> on IK Peg. Fuck, that is not an easy template. Marskell 21:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well for absolute magnitude I just compute it manually. You'll need a calculator with a base-10 log function. (See my example at: User:RJHall/temp#Barbard.27s_Star) There is documentation for the templates on the template pages. For example: {{Starbox_astrometry}}. For color indices, try SIMBAD's (hidden) measurements section and select "display all measurements". There's a bunch under ubv, and I usually pick the latest. — RJH (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"There is documentation for the templates on the template pages." Indeed, but I don't read that shit. Plain autodidacticism over here. (Which, in its simplest form, is a cut-and-paste from a page I've already looked at.) If it's not clear, I'm incapable of manually computing absolute magnitude. However, I can slog through and competently digest abstracts and whatnot, so I'll cite as many numbers as I can in the infobox before it's on the mainpage.
All of which leads to a sad, but necessary, observation—I'll never attempt to be the primary author on a star page again. So it goes. Thanks for all the help. Marskell 22:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't say that I care to read profanity on my talk page either. But so it goes. Anyway, you're welcome. Here's a form that will compute absolute magnitude: http://www.munee.info/jp30prt3.htm — RJH (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I find you're responses sometimes so abrupt that I mistake them for unfriendliness. However, you've been the one volunteering to help me so I have no business getting rankled and posting glib comments. Cheers, Marskell 07:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know I can be a little terse in my writing, but it's really not me being unfriendly. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding. It can be easy to gain a false impression from a written message sometimes, and I know I have to catch myself on occasion from reading the wrong tone in a note. As for the cussing, well I guess I was raised a little strictly in that sense. To me it just seems crude and uneducated. (Often a false impression, I know.) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I took the liberty of inserting the parallax error value from the source into the infobox. (To me its an important value to include.) — RJH (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do this bunch. I travel Fri–Monday, and depending on the hotel, I'm not sure what kind of internet access I'll have; definitely I'm in the air Friday, Monday, and busy most of Saturday. If you have to botify anything in my absence (that is, if I don't get to them), see User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On Ebionites and everything else, I won't be able to catch up until tonight or tomorrow; travel afterburn, around-the-house duties, need to get a lot of stuff taken care of, and later can sit down and catch up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry I never got to Ebionites; I'm still swamped, behind after my travel, and concerned about a couple of other big picture items that are sapping my time. I'm ready to dig in to the Content Workshop, but it's progressed so far that I'm not sure where to start; there are many pages. Where is my input needed ? Do I just start through the talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I found and read through one archive that had a lot of chat about FA/GA not getting along and FA being too focused on MOS (in other words, I found only GA jabs at the FAC process), then went looking for the main page, and find that Wikipedia:Content review takes me to a Deletion review page, so I still haven't found the starting place. Why is this a subpage of Deletion review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conversation moved to Mike's talk page; I'm afraid I was stunned at what I found there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm done with referencing (and improving, I think) Lutosławski: thanks for your help and patience. What now? --RobertG ♬ talk 11:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marskell, I've been watching the content review workshop and also following discussions at WT:FAC, WT:FA and other places about all the issues regarding improving PR and clarifying the role of GA. The discussion has been happening for a long time and though I don't agree with everything that's been said, I think it's important that we try something. So rather than jump in there and prolong the discussion, I just want to let you know that I'm available to help implement just about anything. Particularly at PR where there won't be lots of resistance from an entrenched community. With PR I think it's safe to try something -- anything, really -- and just revert back if it doesn't work. --JayHenry 17:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. As an aside, I've seen you ask for an example of an article that could be GA but not FA. I think an example is Ryan White, where I've exhausted available sources, but don't feel the sort of research exists from either academics or media analysts to make this FA-comprehensive. --JayHenry 17:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. Do you like rhinos? --JayHenry 17:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marskell, I have been pretty busy the last few days in real life, and my current FAC absorbed the little WP time I had available, so it's been nearly a week since I've been able to post to the workshop. I have tried to keep up but the volume of posts is pretty high; I'll see if I can figure out what would be helpful, but if you have a suggested direction let me know. I will also drop Sandy a note since I promised I'd look over her comments, though it appears she's now an integrated member of the group. Mike Christie(talk) 03:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slp1 (talk·contribs) has done a tremendous amount of work on it, but it still has a lot of issues. I need to look at it tonight and see if we can "get there from here". The lead needs to be rewritten, cultural aspects is still uncited, Classification is not classification, I need to see if it's comprehensive, and I need to check if it still needs to be copy-edited. The bigger problems are 1) we have to rely on one editor only as to accuracy, as Slp seems to be the only subject expert involved, and 2) s/he is citing the entire thing to textbooks rather than the peer-reviewed journal literature. That's unfortunate, and I'm not sure how to handle that; it's better than nothing, and much better than what was there before, but is it good enough for FA? I'll drop a note to Slp.[1]SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conversation here; what do you think? It comes down to how much Slp1 and I can do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing asteroid belt's FAC and Tony has requested that I find someone new to copyedit. I thought might be amenable to the idea. Serendipodous 07:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly surprised (but not unhappy!) to see this saved, as I never quite finished on the refs! Regarding use of UK English: it's been discussed several times, but we've always concluded that US English is not appropriate, for the same sorts of reasons that it wouldn't be appropriate to write the Wikipedia report on the recent Dolphins vs Giants NFL game at Wembley in UK English. To do so would mean using language different from that used by those involved (F1 had only one North American driver (Jacques Villeneuve) at the time, and there was only one other named American individual, Tony George, involved). Strictly speaking it's not just a case of substituting 'tire' for 'tyre', but also 'straightaway' for 'straight', 'push' for 'understeer', 'drafting' for 'slipstreaming' etc etc; and then you have an article about F1 that's not written in the language of F1. To my understanding, such would not meet the Wikipedia guidelines on use of national varieties of English. Hope that's convincing ;-) Happy to discuss if not. Cheers. 4u1e 13:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aaawww...how cute....been collaborating with Spawn Man and wrestling with Vampire which is a bigger task than Lion...Ostrich is promising but I need to brush up on poison mushrooms for a few days now (game show/trivia)....cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: What else I was doing was polishing up Variegated Fairy-wren and Amanita ocreata....currently at FAC (given you missed lion...). Circeus noted the sorry state of the destroying angel article when I did Amanita phalloides, so I got round to developing Amanita virosa (I like 'em in FA sets...) as I had to brush up on some mushroom knowledge..., but the taxonomical headache around that species and Amanita bisporiga dampened my enthusiasm, however I quickly built up Amanita ocreata as it is fairly well circumscribed...thought the death cap was lonely as the only fungal FA....let me know if there's anything I missed. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 08:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you don't want to see Exploding Scattergories, but do you think one for Biographies would be appropriate? Good work! --Ling.Nut 05:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ah, did I tell you the ten would grow? :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
meh. WP:BIO is huge. Wikipedia:Featured articles has 28 categories. But I have an active and healthy aversion to quibbling over trivia. If you don't wanna do it, then don't do it. 'Nuff said! --Ling.Nut 06:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bio is huge, MilHist is huge, Video games are huge, Hurricanes are huge. I told 'ya they'd grow; that's how GA got out of hand. I want to put twenty bucks on it right now; we'll talk in a year :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) Yes, everything that deals with sex and/or violence of any kind is huge... Video games on Wikipedia? Cursed hoi polloi! Back, I say! Begone, foul beasts! --Ling.Nut —Preceding comment was added at 06:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't grown yet. Someone adds, someone removes. It will be fine. I'm quite pleased with the first day of its existence. Marskell 08:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking you're gonna hafta get others to agree with you that the list shouldn't be changed, then reword the intro to say "do not change them without discussion on talk." Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit etc etc. But fear not, I won't be the one pushing for new cats. I was making a mild suggestion; I have no stake in the matter. --Ling.Nut —Preceding comment was added at 14:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to drop you a note thanking you for your participation in my RfA, which was successful (137-22-5). I'm sure that sounds sarcastic, considering, but it's actually not. You presented a valid concern and I appreciate that you dropped the strong from your oppose. I look forward to proving to my opposers that I have learned from that situation, and hope to get involved in the workshop. Thanks for your consideration and best regards. Lara❤Love 19:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be the main editor of this article, so in case you didn't notice, I thought I'd let you know that I left some queries in HTML comments after I copy-edited it earlier. I'm informed by one of the esteemed admins that I shouldn't add these, as although "no one is ever going to read hidden comments…[they] detract from the quality", so I thought I'd point it out before somebody removes them in the name improving the encyclopedia. They are minor points, but things I couldn't clarify without some knowledge of the subject. An interesting article and certainly one of the best of those recently featured. Andplus 16:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marksell. I thought one was supposed to get a consensus to have an FA removed, rather than obtain a majority ("The featured article director or his delegates determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.") As a matter of fact, the vote came to 9:4. Isn't this a lack of consensus rather than the contrary? PHG (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marksell. That a 69% vote one way would equal a consensus is new to me (and contradicts "U-3 and lesser degrees of unanimity are usually lumped in with statistical measures of agreement, such as: 80%, mean plus one sigma, two-thirds, or majority levels of agreement. Such measures usually do not fit within the definition of consensus." Consensus decision-making#If consensus is not unanimous, who must agree?). Would you have a reference for your claim? PHG (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marksell. I am not meaning to bother you, but from what I can read from the rules, the default is indeed keep at FAR if there's no consensus: "The featured article director or his delegates determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly", i.e. you need a consensus to decide a change of status. Fundamentally, this means that a consensus is needed to make an article FA, and a consensus is also needed to demote the same article from FA, which is fair enough. However, a 69% vote is too low a figure to determine a consensus (above, Consensus decision-making#If consensus is not unanimous, who must agree?). As long as we respect Wikipedia rules, I am thus afraid it is not legitimate to remove this article from the FA list. PHG (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious answer is: "There is no consensus to change the status of this article". Either you change FAR rules or you abide by them, but as long as the rules are "The featured article director or his delegates determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly", then a consensus is needed to make the change, and 69% is not a consensus (above, Consensus decision-making#If consensus is not unanimous, who must agree?). An uncivil and partisan user such as User:Devanampriya has the right to file an FAR against an article he fundamentally dislikes, but I have the right to demand that Wikipedia FAR rules be strictly respected. PHG (talk) 13:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't check history inbetween Sanger's first iteration and the Jan 04 RBP; that would be way too much work since there are no good records and it would involved stepping through WP:FA diffs one at a time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for option 1. The beautiful article stays as is, it is just not an FA, but who cares? Also, it avoids double standards of option 2. As you say it will save a month of arguing which is guaranteed with these participants. Well, just MHO. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, they've been booted out well and truly, and he has probably lost his seat. Sanity at last. Tony(talk) 10:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
heeheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheh - election night is a saturday night tradition of drinking plenty of beers and cheering for yer team,..I mean party cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC) (after plenty of aforesaid beverages..)[reply]
When editors I hold in high regard supported my outside view on the Durova matter, I was very pleasantly surprised; in fact, I was fully expecting to be ignored, or at best to have a few nods of agreement from the editors whose paths I had crossed. To see my view referred to in what I suspect will be a very important Arbcom case has encouraged me to believe that perhaps my "little" contributions are seen to have value here. Thank you for bringing those views to the table. Risker (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that another editor "sounds like a spokesperson for the Stasi" isn't really in the spirit of WP:CIV and WP:NPA.[2] . Cooler heads all around would be helpful (and yes, I need to cool down too). Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tim. Eurocopter's latest comments pretty much show his reasons for initiating that review. I don't mind leaving it open, and have tried to constructively address any relevant points he made, but the whole thing's pretty pointy and bad faith. Neil☎ 17:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, should we tolerate FARs made in bad faith even if actionable/valid concerns are made? My opinion is that as long as valid concerns are made the FAR should stand. However, as admins we should not be allowing bad faith (when there is surmountable evidence) in the encyclopedia. Joelito (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, there absolutely are a couple of valid concerns (mainly referencing formats), which I'll try and fix. Neil☎ 09:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Marskell, you shouldn't have to do this; it's covered by the date settings in your user preferences. Linking the date, in any format, allows your date preferences to work. On the other hand, doing this does allow for more consistent formatting for non-logged-in readers. By the way, this still needs a citation; another Wiki article isn't a ref. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look in the section "Modern day" for the two footnotes I flagged as failed verification. Then look at them in edit mode. They are reflabels that go nowhere, refer to nothing; I don't know what they are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marskell. Although it has undergone a lot of changes recently, I did a fair amount of work on the original article in order to get it up to GA. So I think I may be a little biased. — RJH (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does get easier with time; lots of time. More time than I should mention :-) But the adage is true. I wish poetry worked for me, but this analytical, synthesizing brain needs facts, and the facts are sometimes in short supply when it comes to life and death. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flowers and babies; spring, new life, hope. Unless, of course, you've been through several years of the diaper wars, and then flowers take precedence over babies, because they aren't attached with the same poopiness and sleepless nights :-) I guess ... time doesn't really heal ... I still despise the negligence that killed my mother and the people who made it harder than it had to be with the same intensity as the first day, but it no longer dominates my days or, more notably, my nights. I sleep well, and I remember the blessings, and have moved beyond the bitterness. Of course, it doesn't hurt that Merck is having to fork over a ton of cash in the Vioxx settlement :-) Beautiful baby there, I wonder who's it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just writing in to say that Europa is likely to be my next project (never rains but it pours- ESA just decided to dump a year's worth of Venus Express findings in our laps, Neptune is still a sore, and of course Ceres needs attention too, but I think I can keep my eyes on Europa if I have a little help). I still intend to move forward with the plan to get all of the seven great moons included in the Solar System topic. To do that, they all need to be GA or higher. Four already are. I'd be happy to see Triton and Ganymede as GAs, but Europa should be an FA on principle. Given your interest in ET life, I thought you might want to give it a go with me. Serendipodous 16:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user told me yesterday he was dealing with vandals and sockpuppetry, but as I am not an admin, I thought I'd refer the incident to you to help him out :) Here it is:
"I've been dealing with vandals for a long time. I'm thinking that you've come across your fair share. Nihiltres has been helping me out but I'm afraid he's a bit caught up, possibly on a wikibreak. I'd like to bring the following to your attention:
Suspected Sockpuppets of Omnifish
Suspected Sockpuppets of Hargon10
the most recent vandalism stab at my Talk Page
Please help me block these users once and for all. They're all mean spirited. They obviously don't WP:AGF, and don't know how to become a positive contributor to the 'Pedia we have running here. If you could help me I'd be much obliged. User:RatedRestricted"
Judgesurreal777 16:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mentoring him sounds good, I offered to help too, so hopefully he will stay out of trouble :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marskell, I posted some comments here; perhaps you can offer insight. I have posted the same inquiries to the other users involved. Thanks, --Daysleeper47 (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your inquiry about my WikiStyle, as it were.
I'm not exactly sure what I'm doing, but I know I want to keep wikipedia clean, vandals out, and articles good. I know how to write basic wiki, but maybe my writing style is a bit creative. If you have any tips, just throw 'em out. I'll try to catch them.
But there was a vandal that I cannot block or forcefully reprimand, so I thought, who better than you? :)
[[3]]
Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, I've done a little on it. Seems pretty good to me (i.e., I made a few changes only). Tony(talk) 10:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, that will teach me to catch up on my watchlist before I start working; I entered comments and fixes after you moved it to archive, not realizing you'd already moved. I wanted the oldid to be clean and perfect; now the version added to articlehistory by GimmeBot will have ref errors :-) I do wish someone else would check refs the way I do, but I 'spose I'll have to give up on that idea, because I'm not seeing anyone else doing it at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, FAR let down a good faith editor on Swedish language. The fellow has been asking for help on that article for a very long time, in several places (including my talk page and the FA talk page), and I've encouraged him throughout to first attempt to work out the deficiencies on the talk page, and to bring it to FAR only if it can't be worked out. The article has issues, and panda's attempts to fix them are being reverted. So because a pointy FAR pre-empted a necessary FAR, a necessary FAR wasn't done. If the issues continue, it will probably be back at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I realize that on Frank; I usually process my watchlist in the morning before I start working, and today I did differently, silly me. I also understand that on Swedish language, but panda comes out short on that nonetheless, because s/he is now nowhere in spite of a very civil and good faith effort to improve an FA instead of slapping it through FAR; if s/he had brought it to FAR initially, it would have been reviewed, so by following my advice to try to work it out first on talk page, the bottom line is the article is affeced and not reviewed and panda is likely left wondering about our processes. Perhaps a nice note? I would say that when a pointy FAR is put up with the point to *avoid* FAR, we should let the FAR run, in terms of thinking about what is best for the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has just been changed from "As part of the Manual of Style, this page is ..." to "This page is a style guideline". This is another attempt to water down the status of MOS: the edit summary says, possibly deceptively, "tweak cat entry". It's not a tweak, it's a major change that has not been (specifically) discussed on the talk page.
If there's a need for a separate template for style guidelines that are not MOSs, one should first be created. I'm sure there is one, anyway. MOS certainly needs one through which its own submanuals can announce their MOS status. Now all of the MOSs are suddenly merged into the larger set of mere "styleguidelines". If you look down the list at top right of MOS, you'll see that MOSs are under "Supplementary manuals", and the others under other lists beneath this category. Until an hour ago, the MOS submanuals had distinguishing templates at the top of their pages.
Tony is a hard nut to crack, and thank God I had you on my side. I didn't have you for JK Rowling and it's been a much tougher ride. Serendipodous 16:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Marskell, I recently requested a peer review for this sports-related piece that is now a solid B-class article. I have received encouraging and helpful feedback from User:Roger Davies, whose comments are on my talk page. He recommended that I expand the article to at least 1,500 words and go straight for an FA nomination. This is prudent advice, and I certainly intend to act on his suggestion to enlarge the piece. On the other hand, I sense that the article would be on stronger ground if it were first upgraded to GA standards. Any recommendations on ways to promote this article to GA status would be much appreciated. Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If finding one article in Sandy's edit history, which I checked for other purposes, interesting, and commenting on the related AfD, is to be considered WP:STALKing, then the policy would require considerable tightening. This is not "following a contributor around the wiki" in any rational sense of the phrase. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 17:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, if that is stalking, so is this undiscussed reversion to "facilitate a range of improvements" and the rest of the existing bad writing. But, assuming good faith, you will notice that I dealt with other matters immediately before and afterwards, and intend to go on doing so; I have no wish to irritate Sandy; I am just embarassed that the FAR instruction were badly written, and left several matters obscure or unmentioned which we nevertheless expect nominators to carch on to. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 17:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Badgered? I responded to Sandy's edit, immediately before which named me, and suggested that only those who had discussed Chavez-related articles had a right to opine there. A classic case of WP:OWN. I have asked elsewhere about your judgment that looking at one article from someone's edit history is Wikistalking; if it is, the wording should be adjusted. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 02:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marskell, I've responded on my talk page to your message there. Carcharoth (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from User_talk:Joelr31#Edward_Teller) In general you are doing a great job keeping the WP:FAR process up and running. I have never paid attention to how it closes, but I looked on the talk page and saw a bot did the closing from what I saw and was confused. Of course, I should have thought to look at the actual FAR discussion page. In general, this was a productive FAR. The article was improved through the process in a way that brought it much closer to the standards of more newly minted WP:FAs. I have had a consistent record of being hotly contested in requests for additional citations. I try to hold others to the standards I have held myself to in my 3FAs, 4FLs 41GAs, as well as my current WP:FAC and 25 current WP:GACs. I am often contested and this case was no different. I just was very disappointed at the closure which essentially endorsed this edit as well as this one. However, since most editors don't want to hold themselves to the standards I hold myself to this will I am sure continue to happen. My problem is that the citation covering the entire section truly amounts to no more than a bunch of references for someone to fish through. PMA and I have had at it before and at some point I think he should just call a Spade a Spade when it comes to taking my advice. I guess I would just like your opinion on the two edits I am troubled by. The larger picture was that a greatly improved article was kept and if you were up against a deadline to make a decision you did the right thing. That is not my point here. My question is it now policy to cite several paragraphs with a few general sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. Since my command of English is limited, it is much easier to create lists than articles :-)--Legionarius (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly did you mean by "adminstrator warnings"? Did you intend to write "administrative warnings?" Thanks. Swarm Internationale (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I can see you're an administrator, too, because you have an indicator at the bottom of your talk page. I did not notice this indicator from the contributors who added the other warnings. Which one in particular was an administrator? I'll be sure to go make nice with the powers that be. On the 3RRR rule, I'll have to go do a self examination of my posts regarding that article to see if I violated the rule. Thanks for the tips. Swarm Internationale (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, according to this, I can remove warnings on my talk page. I think you should have protected my talk page per request instead of participating in the restoration of these warnings on my talk page. Do you agree now? Thanks. Swarm Internationale (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're (you and I) are editing simulteaously, so we can drop it. I think all is settled, and hopefully this won't be an issue in the future. Swarm Internationale (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you didn't see an admin (thats me) removed the warnings from the user's talk page. Please stop harassing other users. John Vandenberg (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want someone to see a message, give that person a diff. Dont "manage" someone elses talk page for them, and especially dont manage it in a way they dont want it managed. John Vandenberg (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your attempts to "justify" you actions are ludicrous. The first time I cleared the users talk page,
My apology; now that you have pointed it out, I can see that it was the user who used that format.
My concern was quadrupled because I read this message, which is wrong; the user is not required to keep messages on their talk page. The messages on their talk are for their benefit - not for the benefit of anyone else. The cow bells went off when I saw the "December 7" message on the user talk page again - I saw you were in the history and assumed you had added it back (I didnt click through the diffs, so I didnt check to see that it was restored by the user). My bad. John Vandenberg (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for looking out for me. I am glad to have the warnings off my talk page, as I had read them SwarmInternationale 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, users are allowed to remove warnings, whether from administrators or not. Also, users should not remove content from another person's user page or talk page, unless it is simple vandalism. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marksell, I would appreciate if you would not get an edit war with me. It's inappropriate to revert a good faith edit that is not vandalism without first discussing it, especially if there is a discussion on the talk page. Various policies and guidelines urge us to discuss before reverting. I hope we can discuss this in a reasonable matter on the talk page. I hope you can understand I would much rather focus on what the IPCC has to say about mitigation rather than the IPCC itself, in the mitigation section. It would be appropriate to do so. I changed the entry so we can focus on the actual topic, in such a way that I think readers interested in mitigation and adaption topics will get some actual information of substance. I welcome you continue editing and adding to the mitigation section, but please don't change it back to discussing the IPCC. That would be more appropriate elsewhere. Thanks for understanding. My regards, ~ UBeR (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gettysburg needs attention; I'll try to look tonight. Do we need to revisit timing on some of the noms, considering the number of reviews? Kaypoh currently has four noms initiated; Chess was reviewed less than a year ago. Two of ALoan's FAs appeared almost simultaneously, raising questions about the unfortunate timing. One article that could have benefitted from review was removed because it was a "bad faith" "pointy" nom, and others are being flagged as bad faith (what happened to AGF?) How do we figure out which noms need to run their course? I can understand two Emsworth noms at once, but two ALoans?? I would want to work on his articles, but two over the holidays isn't going to happen. For that matter, considering the holidays, even one may not happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right regarding the higher volume; perhaps the work ahead will be more time consuming than the past review of very old and more obviously deficient brilliant prose promotions. I sure hate to see two ALoan FAs up at once, but I guess there's nothing can be done about it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Three hours and counting, and I just finished processing today's watchlist, and caught up on yesterday's AN/I, which got closed without my final comment. Some strange assumptions there. Oh, well. I see the "bad faith" FAR issue also surfaced in that discussion; I have put many hours into Mav's National Park FAs at FAR. Do you think either Mav or Mongo would be willing to help on ALoan's Park FA, since that is their territory? I haven't had time to look closely at the Lisbon FAR yet, but perhaps I could ping some Portuguese-speaking friendly friends for help? The timing stinks, because when I have a house full of people over the holidays, I can't keep the same pace I maintain at other times. I'll finish up looking at Gettysburg because it seems close, but I'll have to back off on others until mid-Jan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left bad news on the Gettysburg FAR; it's what I thought I was seeing the other night, but I was so tired of the article, that I needed to go back in and check. Lots of little superscripted notes we could count, but they don't all verify anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because BBC and the other news stories are being updated constantly, what was verifibiale yesterday may not be so today where they drop particular sentences. Are you telling me that BBC changes their content after the fact? I've never encountered that, but I cite them a lot on Chavez, so this could be a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Nother FT idea....our galactic neighbourhood[edit]
OK, 5 nearest star systems as a Featured Topic? I'd say Sirius and Alpha Centauri could be gotten up to FA and Wolf 359 and...the other one...could be GA (or FA if ambitious....). cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have corresponded a bit already as Sirius is starting to be buffed up for a tilt at FAC at some stage. Still looks a bit short to me and I am all at sea with much of the technical stuff. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Now there's a weird one -see the templates on Sirius talk page and maybe an informal contest as to the weirdest collection of relevant templates on an article talk page (sorta lateral thinking exercise..) cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Woof woof)...is that 2 barks for 'yes' and 1 for 'no' or.... I am easy - just thought it was funny....nah leave it in as I love the cultural depiction left-field stuff cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning toward keep on Riel if some paragraphs such as "Riel reconsidered" are cited. Overlinking is a concern but not major in my opinion. Joelito (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back on track; where was I? Yes, for the purposes of the list, the frog is probably fine, but how did it make FA? Sheesh; it's hard to imagine it's comprehensive, but I guess it is. Anyway, we should look at the rest of that list Pagrashtak left on the citations talk page a while back sometime. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, got distracted. But I'll give it a last throw tomorrow, and thanks for your patience on this one. Problem is I just don't like GM (I actively dislike him); but I just don't want one of Filiocht's demoted. Ceoil (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for note, and for having the patience of a saint on this one. Definitely preemptively is the way to go; its much easier to motivate yourself when there is no-one watching. Ceoil (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked Sandy to take a look on 'the FA with citation problems' page, that seems like the best venue to decide removal. I made a stab at Tale of a Tub last night and Geogre made some very reasoned agruments against the citations I placed. And I'm inclined to agree with him; more or less he discredited the sources I plucked. Its a very subtle and nuanced article he wrote, and I'm leaning towards grandfathering in this case. However, the problem is definition; how do we decide which editors are are worthy of such an escape clause. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you restore this to my user space? Thanks, Tlogmer(talk/contributions) 04:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I'm just collecting deleted articles I think are cool for eventual transwikification (i.e. to wikia or bluwiki) Tlogmer(talk/contributions) 21:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marskell! In order not to mess up your painstaking work on the refs for the Battle of Musa Qala could you please go to my Talk page and e-mail me a contact e-mail contact address. I want to provide you with some confidential details and refs to enable an error on the article to be corrected. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Musa Qala is a town of around 15,000 to 20,000 people,[11][12] with 25,000 in the surrounding area.[12] (Reports from 2006 placed the number at 2,000 within the town.[13]) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I wasn't sure on this, or I would have done it myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Punctuation? What the Taliban is doing is inhuman. They are terrorizing the population <--- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Intended? Chinook troop carriers, Blackhawk helicopters, and Apache gun ships were involved in the assault, intented to capture Roshan Hill.[8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a typo? Intented --> intended? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why, sentence not working right for me. The troops smashed a route through Taliban trenches throughout the night to clear the way for further ground troops, and dug-in with defensive positions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Numerical elements of dates not spelled out: [5]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a typo. Firefox is slow for me and I still use IE; I wish it wasn't, because spell check in edit mode works on FF.
Numerical elements of dates. I had thought about this... I'll ask Tony for edification but I don't plan to change for the time being. Spelling them out seems much closer to the vernacular for me, and I believe the page is consistent.
To be clear, is there a discussion on blue linking date currently open? Marskell (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that discussion is all over the place. I'll be back with a link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marskell Hi Thanks for the info. I have done a couple of changes - some spelling errors - updated the aerial image I created with province borders and included Bahgran location, you may need to refresh your cache to see it. I have also moved it further down and to the right of the page as it detracts from the layout of the start of the article, clashing with both the infobox and the content box. I've also deleted two duplicated casualty reports - children killed in cross fire and child hanged. They are already stated in the article in other places but worded differently. I have included a Videolink from an independant Journalist shown on the BBC News, by Stephen Gray, who was attached to the Yorkshire Regiment during the battle, it shows the incident with the 2 children injured in the car when the driver was shot and also the one of the soldier, Sgt Lee (Johnno) Johnson, killed by the landmine explosion. I have also replaced the image of Sgt Johnson with a better one as per comments on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Musa QalaRichard Harvey (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the article now has a FA from (06:49, 22 January 2008) in the top right hand corner. :0) Richard Harvey (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Marskell, recently the Lead(II) nitrate article was demoted from FA class, for reasons pointed out in a FA review process. In this review process, you commented that there are wrong facts in the said article. Would you please be so kind as to assist in a small clean-up action for the article, and add some pointers to the wrong facts on the article's talkpage, please? I would highly appreciate your support. Merry Christmas. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hello Marskell, I've given the article a good copy-edit, in the line of your suggestions. I also included information from its talkpage, and other data that I have retrieved. Could you please have another look at it? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 09:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Hey Tim, did you see WP:BABS and WP:FABS? cool aren't they? I did ask Betacommand to do one for mammals too but his talkpage gets so swamped so quickly it disappears like quicksand...cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Marskell. I guess BJ is fine, heh. I took another look at the article, and it gets my support. Good work. THanks for the kind words too. I finally have some time to be active for a bit, although come January, I fear this will not be the case. BuddingJournalist 17:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Marskell, I've copy-edited the lead(II) nitrate article from the Chemicals wikiproject, after it was recentely demoted from its FA-status. In this, you contributed to the voting process. Would you please be so kind as to provide feedback in its now running FA re-candidacy? Wim van Dorst(talk) 19:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
from (06:49, 22 January 2008) in the top right hand corner. :0) Richard Harvey (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
